Godfather of Global Warming Is Less Alarmed Now

by Panos Prevedouros Professor James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist who had a major impact on the development of global warming theory. As the Toronto Sun describes him: Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honored working scientist and academic. In recent interviews Lovelock has made these rather starling declarations: He had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. He’s been a long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. He is in favor of natural gas fracking extraction because natural gas is a low-polluting alternative to coal. He believes that ‘sustainable development’ is meaningless drivel. He “can’t stand windmills at any price.” He “blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.” I am truly humbled to be in agreement with him, 5 for 5, with first five arguments: climate change, nuclear power, fracking, sustainable development and windmills. I have not yet written an article blasting greens (although I often refer to them as pseudo-greens) because I’ve been rather busy countering the railigious. Sources Green ‘drivel’ exposed: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for fracking   Panos Prevedouros is a member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii’s Board of Scholars. Panos Prevedouros’ blog, which is from where this has been reposted (with permission), can be found at :http://fixoahu.blogspot.com Panos D. Prevedouros, Ph.D. is a professor of traffic and transportation engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering,...

Consensus science

by Mark A. Monoscalco On 3/28/12 fifty former NASA employees signed a letter to Charles Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator. The letter requests NASA to refrain from making claims that CO2 is impacting global climate.  The fifty employees that signed this letter have a combined total of over 1,000 years of professional experience.  The entire letter can be read at this link: NASA employees letter The following are some of the highlights: We believe the claims by NASA and GISS (Goddard Institute For Space Studies), that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.  As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. Why is this important?  We have seen other letters and petitions authored and signed by noteworthy scientist who question the link between man-made CO2 and global climate change.  This letter is important because Dr. James Hansen, director of GISS is one of the most outspoken advocates in favor of government action to restrict CO2 emissions.  Dr....

I Declare; By Jere #1

Global Warming Is Losing So Badly, It Must Resort To Fraud And Forgery by Jere Krischel Everybody on the planet with a pulse has heard about Al Gore, and “The Inconvenient Truth.”  Some fair percentage might have heard of Climategate, and some subset of that group might have actually heard of Climategate II.  But beyond a tiny fraction of Forbes readers, and perhaps some of the more well informed activists on either side of the anthropogenic global warming debate, you probably never heard of Peter Gleick – at least not until February 20, 2012. The story begins a little before that, though.  On February 15, 2012, several documents, purported to be from the libertarian think tank The Heartland Institute, were published on the web.  They included fairly sensitive donor information, some budget documents, fundraising plans, a few public tax documents, and detailed private contact information for the Board of Directors of The Heartland Institute.  But most importantly, they contained the ultimate smoking gun, the document titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.”  Within this document, every worst fear of Prius driving, earth-loving, tree-hugging liberals was confirmed.  The Koch brothers were conspiring to stop teachers from teaching science!  Fossil fuel interests were targeting global warming activists blogging on Forbes.com!  Evil retired-weathermen were being given money to cast doubt on the iron-clad science of anthropogenic global warming!  The horror! Needless to say, the liberal-blogosphere lit up like a Christmas tree.  Without bothering to actually check sources, liberal news media outlets started running with the story, apparently assuming that due diligence had been done on the anonymous source of the Heartland leak...
Twisted Science Bullies of the Beltway

Twisted Science Bullies of the Beltway

By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. October 31, 2007 Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. The complexities of global warming, (aka “climate change”) should be the domain of scientific discussions. Such discussions should be held within the constraints of the scientific method, focusing on the careful collection, management, and analyses of the climate data. There should be careful resolutions and explanations of conflicting data, replication, and passing the essential demands of explaining the observations of the climate data. I have never been in discussions of science and engineering issues where these values weren’t highly respected and determinant. Even competing designs, processes, and theories were lightly defended since the common understanding was that the data would determine which was superior. In contrast, falsely representing the data supporting a particular theory or design, would have been severely dealt with and career limiting. We have been told by Al Gore and others that there should be a grand debate about global warming. Yet there has been precious little debate worthy of the name. In fact, the alarmists have spent much of their time hurling insults and ad hominem attacks, suppressing speech, terminating miniscule funding, calling for Nuremburg-style trials of dissidents, treating opponents as traitors, etc. The professionals in this group remain silent about these insults in apparent silent support of the nastiness and unprofessional conduct. This is not a debate, this is not science. It is bullying. These tactics suggests there are weaknesses in the global warming theory which can’t stand scrutiny. One explanation of this may be described by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D., writing from Brisbane, Australia: “The Holy Grail for most scientists is...

Media, Global Warming, and Junk Science

By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. November 28, 2007 I am always amazed that in a nation of high technology and science the media are so spectacularly and relentlessly ignorant of the scientific processes. Worse, many interest groups exploit this to their own advantage and agendas. Over the years the media have lost their curiosity and the willingness to do their own homework. On November 2, 2007, the national meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors convened with a veritable love fest with past President Bill Clinton and a teleconference with Al Gore. Much of the love fest centered upon global warming, the pending doom, the spreads of diseases, rising tides, and what the mayors were planning to do about it. The media, local and national, were in their predictable swoon, with the notion of a hard media question completely absent. Mind you that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that global temperatures have risen about 0.7 deg C over the past 120 years or so. That’s about 0.07 degrees per decade, or 0.007 degrees warming per year. This is so small that if this 120 year increase were to occur in a room, no one would notice. With many places on the earth actually showing no changes or small declines in temperatures, no one actually asked how does anyone know the 0.7 deg C exactly, and where did it occur, how was this measured, and with what instrumentation? Not in Seattle. Al Gore brought another swoon when he observed that industry is treating the atmosphere like an open sewer and that needs to be fixed. With due...